The end of the Electoral College is near

Ziggurat said:
Not gonna happen. The current process gives extra influence (relative to their size) to small states, and they're not going to ratify an ammendment which will take that influence away.
Click to expand...

Ding FTW!


Democrats want this because they got burned by it in 2000. However, they should keep in mind it could go the other way just as easily.

The electoral process also amplifies a majority to give the newly elected president more of a mandate. Of course, that can be good or bad itself.



Oh, and BTW, superdelegates are a feature of the Democratic party - the Republican party has no superdelegates. They are not a feature of US government itself, they would not disappear with this ammendment, but if the Democratic party chose to abolish them they could do so quite easily without any act of Congress.
Click to expand...

Hehehe. This also has nothing to do with the general election, either.

IIRC, the superdelegates were invented to allow party bigwigs into the convention thanks to some slight in the '60's or something. And, like "error noise" in 2000 in Florida, they weren't supposed to be enough to alter a race, and normally wouldn't be.


BTW, the convention is supposed to be a deliberative body that discusses who to select. For the past 40 years, though, they've merely been a rubber-stamping of an already-chosen candidate -- a 4 day long TV commercial for the party to tout itself and the candidate. That is their modern purpose.


Why are people bent out of shape that this year's election almost achieved this? Like it's some process that things fold out as they were designed, rather than as how they evolved?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Interesting, but the psychology of the individual voters would have been different if different election systems were in place.
Click to expand...

Quite true.

Abolishing the EC would give more incentive for people in states which have solid majority in favour of one candidate to vote. Currently, a liberal in a solidly conservative state or a solidly liberal state has less incentive to vote than a liberal in a swing state.

Also, preferential voting can encourage third party candidates as a third party vote is almost never a wasted vote.
 
gtc said:
This doesn't actually have anything to do with Diebold or the selection of candidates, does it? Thought not.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but a nationwide "popular vote" for the president would have it's flaws amplified by computer voting. In the electoral, "per state" process, fraud would have to sway the totals in a bunch of states. In a general vote totals process, they could select friendly precincts in friendly states and much more easily pump up the totals.

Note also that this flaw applies to any voting method, whether computers or punch cards.
 
I understand that the Electoral College gives small states an equal say in the general election, but can someone remind me why STATES - rather than PEOPLE - have any say at all?
 
JWideman said:
I understand that the Electoral College gives small states an equal say in the general election, but can someone remind me why STATES - rather than PEOPLE - have any say at all?
Click to expand...


Because the states formed the Union - not people.
 
If the Democrats love popular voting so much, why don't they institute it in their own party primary first and show us all how wonderful it works? They might want to first consider getting rid of the completely non-democratically elected superdelegates before telling us how they revere the popular vote of the people.
 
JWideman said:
I understand that the Electoral College gives small states an equal say in the general election, but can someone remind me why STATES - rather than PEOPLE - have any say at all?
Click to expand...
Reading the Constitution will give you the answer.
 
JWideman said:
I understand that the Electoral College gives small states an equal say in the general election, but can someone remind me why STATES - rather than PEOPLE - have any say at all?
Click to expand...

Because it is the United STATES of America, not United PEOPLE of America.

And remember this, I true democratic, popular vote election is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Interesting, but the psychology of the individual voters would have been different if different election systems were in place.
Click to expand...

Campaigning would have been completely different as well, which is possibly even more important - it's not obvious how much thought individual voters put into considering the effect of the electoral college on the way they vote, but we know with absolute certainty that campaign managers consider it a great deal.
 
Loss Leader said:
As to the title of the OP:

No, it isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would like to see it go to direct popular vote, but it just ain't happening.
And, as pointed out, this would have NO impact on the way parties choose their nominees. Political Parties are Non Governmental organizations, and can pick their candiates any damn way they please, from primary elections to picking somebody's name out of a hat.
Oliver once again shows his total ignorance of the American political system.
He is just pissed off that Ron Paul did not get the GOP nod.
 
Last edited:
DaChew said:
They might want to first consider getting rid of the completely non-democratically elected superdelegates before telling us how they revere the popular vote of the people.
Click to expand...
Peering into my 100% opaque crystal ball, I predict this very thing will come to pass. Or at least something similar.
 
gtc said:
I don't mean to indict the popular vote; I just want to point out that it is not necessarily a better reflection of the will of voters.
Click to expand...

The point is that you're posing a false comparison. In one scenario you're assuming only two major candidates, and in the other you're assuming three. The abolition of the Electoral College WILL invariably make our system more democratic as it moves toward one person, one vote. Democracy is fundamentally, inextricably linked with equality. I happen to think preference-voting even better represents the "will of the people," but that's a different bag. We're in the 19th century here.

Also, it's not completely fair to say an election outcome would have been different had we had X type of voting instead of Y for 1992, 1996 etc., because when you change the rules of the game, you change how people play the game. So Bush could have won the popular vote, if we had one, in 2000 etc.
 
i support ending the electoral college, but it wont happen. the smaller states will never give it up.
 
Why do people keep linking the electoral college to the interests of small states? Sure it favour them a bit. but the effect is not very significant. What matters is that it favours swing states. If you don't live in a swing state you might as well stay home, vote Nader or write in Santa Clause - makes no difference.
 
How do you know the effect is not very significant. In another post in another thread (sorry, search is down) I pointed out that an Alaska voter has about 6 times the power (read, influence) of a California in the EC. Seems significant to me.
 
SezMe said:
How do you know the effect is not very significant. In another post in another thread (sorry, search is down) I pointed out that an Alaska voter has about 6 times the power (read, influence) of a California in the EC. Seems significant to me.
Click to expand...
Sure.

The old NATO force multiplier calculus had an F-16 worth 3-4 Migs, which means that that the standard two ship section that ran into 9 Migs was pretty much screwed.

Quantity has a quality all its own, and any decreas in the number of Alaskans who actually go out and vote, or a surge to above average California voter turnout, renders this alleged factor of influence moot.

It's not a single variable problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom